Données administratives d'une ressource

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by mentioning specific return fields (salary, TJM, etc.) and stating it returns administrative and HR data. However, it does not elaborate on any behavioral quirks, rate limits, or authorization requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus structured args/returns. Every word is informative, no filler. It front-loads the core action and purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, strong annotations) and sibling context, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It could list all returned fields for completeness, but the examples suffice for an administrative data retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', so the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. It repeats that 'id' is the resource ID but does not clarify the pattern or expected format more than the schema does (pattern: ^\d+$). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and the specific resource 'informations administratives', listing examples like salary, daily rate, and HR info. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'boond_resources_get' and 'boond_resources_information', which likely return different subsets of data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'boond_resources_get' or 'boond_resources_information'. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context or conditional logic for choosing it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.